Marion,

A very helpful contribution. Thanks! I suppose the natural question that follows this is 'who does it? ' The Ethnologue website has a huge amount of very useful information along these lines, but I wonder how accurate much of that is (as these things are changing really fast) and many of the elements that you list are not addressed by the data that they collect. Probably there are several programmes addressing these kinds of things in some parts of the world, but where we are no one seems to be doing much apart from the bible translators. End result, mass extinction of languages about to happen before our very eyes, or 'or on our watch' as some might put it! Worrying thought!

Short answer: Very important. I'm not sure what is it exactly that you want to know, maybe you could be more specific?

The challenge here in Tanzania, as may be the case elsewhere, is that there is a strong political value in using a single language. Clearly this brings people together. Swahili has had a powerful impact in this respect in Tanzania, where I live. The consequence of this, however, is that all of the many local languages are rapidly falling into disuse. All around me are young people whose parents speak one of the 100+ local languages of Tanzania, but who themselves are only confident in speaking Swahili. I'm not a linguist, as you can probably see from my profile etc., but I have often wondered if there are groups that recognize the 'threat' of the imminent loss of the cultural heritage that languages represent. But then, just how important is that cultural heritage, and for a developing country with pressing developmental needs, can you really prioritize work (saving languages) that seems to have no concrete practical value. What do you think, Matias. What are your experiences of communities in which languages are disappearing?

Well, you mention a couple of very important issues. First, I haven't worked myself in Tanzania, but a couple of my colleagues worked with one of the native languages from your country and I've read a bit about it. From what I've heard, people in your country see tribal languages as backwards, and think of them as an obstacle in the way of achieving greater national unity (correct me if I'm wrong here). (most) Linguists obviously don't agree with this view, we believe that having many languages is better than having only one, and that it is very important to try to save and document endangered languages before they die out. But the thing is this: linguists usually don't like to interfere with politics, because that can create an unfriendly environment for them to work in, or the government of the country can even forbid linguists from doing fieldwork. In this sense the situation in Latinamerica, where Spanish is seen as a "better" or more important language, and the means to achieve more in life, economically, etc, is a bit different, because although there is an negative atttitude towards native languages, the constitutions of each country protect the use of these native languages, which means that a linguist working in saving language Y won't have a hard time in this regard.

The reasons people have to want to learn a mayor language are usually all true. If you speak Swahili, Spanish or English you get access to a better education, you'll probably have a higher economical status, a better job, etc., but the thing is: you DON'T have to give up your native language to learn the Spanish, Swahili or English, children can grow up speaking both perfectly and have even more advantages in life. This is one of the main points I have personally tried to get across when I have worked with communities with minority languages. You can just show them that they don't have to forget their ancestral language, they can keep it because it is an important part of their culture, and their grandchildren will never forgive them for letting it die.

I don't know if this helps or if I'm rambling too much... Cheers :)

This is really interesting, Matias, and not at all rambling. I have my own personal issues here too. I am English, my wife is Tanzanian. She speaks Swahili (as I do, though less well) aswell as her 'native tongue' which is Kimakonde, from southern Tanzania. She is getting more and more unused to using Kimakonde, although obviously still speaks it fluently. My kids (3 of them) all have passable Swahili, although they speak to one another in English, as that''s medium used in their (albeit international) school. In this small generational situation it's easy to see how three languages could end up with one. I think one of the major challenges of maintaining language diversity will be the push to more and more transboundary communication (esp via the internet) and the 'fashion factor' which sees young people speaking languages that are 'perceived', rightly or wrongly, as being more fashionable. I am sure linguistics have quantified this kind of stuff, but I sense that once your are into your teen years, the likelihood of you becoming a fluent speaker must be dramatically reduced. Here in Tanzania, you are right that local languages are seen as being 'backward' and 'primitive'. The urban youth have completely abandoned them, and this group of society is becoming bigger and more influential with each passing year. Although I am sure there is no active discouraging of local languages in Tanzania, they are just silently being left to slip away. The only people that are really doing anything about it are the missionaries (Wycliff Bible Society) who have these aims of enabling everyone to read the bible in their own language. Sadly, by the time they are done on their (impressive) language projects, they will only be serving a handful of people as all the rest will be Swahili speakers. There is literally no-one now in Tanzania who does not speak Swahili, which is great for universal communication, but the death-knell for the indigenous languages. The obvious legacy of the missionaries, however, will be that most of the languages will at least be written down. I actually wonder if it's not a bunch of mad linguists masquerading as missionaries, just so that they can live out their dreams of exploring wild and wonderful languages!! It's probably only the missionary organizations that would come up with the kind of money required for this sort intensive and sustained work! Do you have experience of Latin America? How are things going there? I am pretty sure the story is much the same for most of the African countries blessed with language diversity.

What I would add to this discussion is to question why you want to bring people together at a national level, as opposed to an international level. Most national boundaries, particularly in Africa, are arbitrary.

Of course, national leaders value national unity, because it increases their power. But why do you, and why does your wife, and are those reasons shared by everyone?

I would have thought that bringing people together at both national and international levels are not mutually exclusive. Language, does, of course, have the potential to separate people, and this is certainly true for Tanzania when considering both the national situation (where there are many local languages - albeit about to disappear) and it's international position, as Swahili-speaking Tanzanians struggle with the effect this has on their capacity to communicate with people in other countries.

The likely future, possibly regardless of local and national sensitivities, is a world where a small number of mega languages are spoken. I suppose the question is therefore whether or not this is a good thing, and if not, what the balance should be between enhancing effective communication across the globe whilst recognizing the value of the millenias-old language cultures that humanity has collectively produced.

There are several projects for endangered languages, for instance the Hans Rausing Fund for Endangered Languages (http://www.hrelp.org/) or this one with collaboration from Google http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/. You might find some useful thoughts there about the value of preserving language diversity and threatened languages.

As for the value of bilingualism and multilingualism for the individual I recommend you have a look at the Bilingualism Matters website http://www.bilingualism-matters.org.uk/ (as well as other sites promoting bilingualism).

Here's a little something a dedicated team of native speakers, linguistic rights activists and scholars from several disciplines drew up and promoted back in 1996:

http://www.unesco.org/cpp/uk/declarations/linguistic.pdf

I would be happy to send a PDF file of the formal edition of the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights, in English and/or Spanish, to anyone who would like to have it. Write to me at [email protected]

This subject of endangered and indigenous languages (often the same) is a fascinating one with application in the U.S. as much as anywhere else. I grew up among the so-called "plain people" and the descendants of the German Anabaptists in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Dutch (American never pronounced "Deutsch" correctly, so now everyone tends to think the "Dutch" are from Holland). The language is spoken now chiefly by the Amish and Mennonites and a few surviving elders in the state. But the language is almost unknown by those raised outside those communities. Yet Pennsylvania Dutch contributes greatly to an understanding of how people adapt to a new environment, recreate a language in a new place, and bond together with that language and its culture. Although I grew up in that culture and learned that language, when I first entered formal German language education, I was astonished to find out that according to our instructor (from Berlin) we spoke a "bastardized" German of no value. Only "hoch Deutsch" in the Berlin form was appropriate. Needless to say, that was a shock to me and caused me all sorts of problems all the way to college.

I have worked with minority cultures speaking African-American Vernacular ENglish and Spanish-influenced English, or even Spanglish on the borders of Mexico and Texas. These students do have a right to their languages but I have found teaching standardized English much more difficult when dealing with English-speaking minority cultures. They face a struggle between the language of their families, the heart and soul of their culture, and the need for a uniform language to obtain political and educational benefits. Their language differences are not so great but the cultural differences can be mind-boggling for these students. Among many young speakers, this conflict is intense and the path to competence in the standard form of the language very difficult. In the U.S. with the emphasis upon individuality, it can be hard to convince these students they must surrender their linguistic and cultural independence to speak, write, and ultimately think 'this way." The need to "shift gears" from one language to another, dependent upon setting and social need, presents another difficulty for these students.

I hope to see as many languages preserved as possible. Years ago in graduate school, we were finally able to read the "Mwindo Epic" in English after it was first translated into Swahili and then into French. Until someone decided to preserve that story and was able to listen to the story in its original language (oral only), work with a translator , and then eventually get the story into a standardized language, none of us could read the story, and we certainly did not know the oral language of the original. We lose so much when we lose a language; some piece of that culture, its history, and its experiences disappear forever. And we won't know what we have lost until decades or centuries later when some question arises about an ancient culture, people, or land, lost in the dim recesses of historical memory.

Languages are dynamic, as part of cultures; but the question is quite

insubstantial: they should be preserved as far as there are

communities of speakers of the language involved. If this is the case,

it's obvious that they are significant not only for the culture they

represent but for those within they are inserted. Therefore, actions

should be focused on preserve linguistic diversity to ensure cultural diversity.

That's a good point, Mercedes.

Since languages reflect other elements of culture, efforts to preserve languages should be coordinated with projects with a wider scope, including reinforcing regional and local alternatives to the corporate-controlled consumer culture.

A key ingredient to preserving languages is to create ways for people to earn their livelihood using their mother tongues. This can raise motivation in native speakers, increase the relative prestige of their languages, and foment their use. Activities might include teaching of languages in a formal context, editorial projects, media production, use of minority languages in public administration (creating work for translators), and so forth. Campaigns to raise public awareness, together with improved legislation in the area of linguistic rights, can help create the conditions for such activities to take root and flower.

I actually disagree with Mercedes to an extent - it depends what you mean by "preserve." There may be varieties that are culturally or scientifically significant without being spoken or valued by any "community" that they are associated with. Nobody owns a language.

Angus, What I meant (in my "Latin English") is that languages shouldn't be considered apart from speakers. Of course you're right when you say "There may be varieties that are culturally or scientifically significant without being spoken or valued by any "community" that they are associated with", but then, no human beings would be implied, therefore, I can't see how they'd be preserved. If I understand the term correctly, languages to be studied is one thing; languages to be preserved respond to many other reasons, I think!

Yes, but there's an ambiguity in "preserving" a language: is it being carefully recorded in as much detail as possible, or are people making efforts to ensure that someone continues to speak it? In the latter sense, I think Fishman's term "reversing language shift" (or stopping language shift) is clearer.

All but a few languages are declining, for example, some languages of Northern Canada and Alaska. Very few native speakers remain for some languages. Some languages in this area are almost certainly headed for extinction. From a philosophical point of view, I would like to see us document and preserve all languages because each one gives us an insight into the function of the human mind and a unique way to look at the human cultural experience. From a practical point of view this is economically impossible, so we need to choose which languages to "preserve" and which ones will fall by the wayside. It's largely a matter of resource allocation. Perhaps it is not unrealistic to ask what are the criteria for selecting the languages that are "worth" preserving? Where and how do we direct our resources in this area?

Whereas political factors can contribute to extinction by design, economic factors will become more and more important in most areas. The trend in some countries is to revive and preserve local languages, sometimes mistakenly called "dialects." A person who can write a better grant proposal will determine which language is better documented and which one becomes neglected.

I might point out that "extinction" of a language (i.e.. when the last native speaker dies) is not as severe as extinction of a species. A language can be revived when enough people take an interest in learning it. Would it be exactly the same as if it had never gone extinct? Probably not but we must remember that all languages change over time anyway.

Very interesting answer Marion,

I suppose that extinction of a language could easily be divided into two (or maybe more) categories. If the last native speaker dies, but there are still written, audio or video records of the language, then resurrection can be achieved. However, if none of these records exist, the extinction will be complete, with no resurrection possible. This seems to be a really important distinction. Maybe in the 'northern' world, many, if not most of the threatened languages have records that would allow them to be revived. In much of the 'southern' part of the world, this is not the case. The story of Cornish in England is an interesting one, where the last native speaker died, but sufficient information was available for it to be restored, and now I understand there are hundreds of Cornish speakers (it's related to Welsh and Breton). In Tanzania, where I live, there are more than 100 languages, but there must be good written records of easily less than half of those. From a cultural perspective, this is a real worry, as that heritage could literally be lost within a generation as the dominance of Swahili becomes ever stronger. It may indeed be costly to preserve a language, with native speakers. But how costly would it be, in this day and age of video-taking mobile phones (which are everywhere, by the way, even here in Tanzania), to record speakers of threatened languages and store the recordings in a repository somewhere. Surely, this could not be that hard. It would just need a little energy from an individual or group. Maybe there are groups somewhere that already do this kind of work. I know that the Wycliffe group are doing a lot of work on vulnerable languages, for their religious purposes. It seems a shame that there are no secular groups that have a similar enthusiasm for this kind of work. But then again, maybe there are, but they do not perhaps have a presence in East Africa. I have a curiosity about the languages of Europe before the arrival of Indo-European. Of course, it is almost impossible to find any information on this, as nothing was written down and no efforts were made to sustain knowledge of those languages. It's a bit harsh to judge the early Europeans for this failure!!! since most had never heard of written communication at that time, but it does make for an interesting comparison with Africa at this time. If we do not record this aspect of our cultural heritage, we will leave our grand-children with a huge information gap, which is a shame, since it will really reflect our negligence rather than anything else.

James,

Thank you for your thoughtful contribution. It reminded of the various ways in which we could document language (periodically) and use this documentation to gauge when a language is threatened. For example, take the various aspects of a language - written, spoken, and listening with a view toward understanding the language. Assuming there is a written form (and for some there is none) one could document grammar rules, vocabulary, definitions, examples, etc. as well as providing prose and even poetry in the language. It is important to make recordings, preferably digital, of multiple native speakers because of individual differences in pronunciation and due to dialectical differences. Recordings from multiple individuals are particularly helpful to a person studying the language.

Statistically, the following numbers could be documented:

1. Number of native speakers

2. Number of fluent non-native speakers. By "fluent" I mean that by a speaker's own evaluation, he or she would not require frequent references to a dictionary or to a grammar "cheat sheet."

3. Number of people who can read the language as a first language

4. Number of non-native readers who can read the language as a second language

5. Number of people who can understand the language to the point of competent comprehension (not just recognizing a word here and there, but a reasonable understanding of the communication.)

If these numbers continue to decline over time, one can estimate when a language will go extinct unless something is done about it.

More later.

Marion,

A very helpful contribution. Thanks! I suppose the natural question that follows this is 'who does it? ' The Ethnologue website has a huge amount of very useful information along these lines, but I wonder how accurate much of that is (as these things are changing really fast) and many of the elements that you list are not addressed by the data that they collect. Probably there are several programmes addressing these kinds of things in some parts of the world, but where we are no one seems to be doing much apart from the bible translators. End result, mass extinction of languages about to happen before our very eyes, or 'or on our watch' as some might put it! Worrying thought!

James,

Thank you for bringing up the topic of accuracy. Dealing with this aspect of a language documentation has many difficulties. First, native speakers may not agree on what is accurate. Case in point: Different regions of Italy use different grammar rules and pronunciation even for the national language, not to mention the local languages. Discussing Italian with native speakers, typically what I heard was, "Here in (fill in the blank with local region) we speak correctly. This is the REAL Italy. In (fill in the blank with Italian region 2) they speak (language other than Italian.) I don't like to listen to them speak."

Secondly, even without complete agreement, having native speakers available to review pronunciation, grammar, and sentence structure is crucial to the accurate preservation of a language. (Case in point linguists were trying to learn Navajo or some other native American language. They thought they understood the rules and vocabulary so, as a test, they tried to formulate their own sentences. To the surprise of the linguists, the native speakers told them that the sentence structure, word choice, and/or grammar was wrong, and proceeded to correct the errors!) Can you imaging how difficult it would be to preserve a language accurately without the feedback of native speakers?

We assume that the native speakers speak perfectly. We do this because we don't know what else to assume. However, sometimes they native speakers mistakes. Do all native English speakers always follow the grammar rules?

It takes great effort over a significant period of time by multiple individuals to preserve all aspects of a language. Unfortunately, from a resource-allocation point of view, the difficulty of preserving a language and documenting its various aspects relates to whether or not it is "worth" preserving. In theory, all languages should be preserved, but in practice we have finite resources to dedicate to language preservation. In some parts of the world, in regions where many distinct languages exist within a small geographical area and where few native speakers of each are still alive, the next generation of what would be native speakers is selecting one of these local languages to preserve while neglecting others. The thinking behind this strategy is that they will have a larger pool of speakers and at least one of the languages in the region will be preserved very well, rather than have all of them go extinct due to fragmented and failed efforts. Alaskan native languages come to mind here.

Hi Marion,

I like your discussion about accuracy in preservation and the accuracy of actual native speakers in speaking their own language. However, I suppose what I was interested in knowing was what is the quickest and most efficient way in which to preserve languages that are disappearing, given the fact that, especially here in Africa, resources are not currently available from the authorities to preserve even 1. Probably these are things that may have to be led by language communities themselves, with a little bit of external support and guidance. This is where you would think that new media could play a really useful role. But then, based on what you have said above, in a situation where 10 languages are about to go extinct in a region, do you preserve 1 properly, in the sort of way you describe above, or do you preserve all 10 in a more informal way, with some simple audio and video archiving? If we raise this to the global level, if we are to lose 1000 languages, do we try to hit all with basic preservation measures, or put greater effort into a select 100? Is anyone asking these questions?

Hello James,

You are right about African languages, and this is true in so many regions of the world. What is worth preserving to us seems not to be a high enough priority to do for others. One can be sure that if funding were available to preserve a language (any language) a researcher or a team of researchers would emerge to meet the challenge. Again, it gets back to resource allocation. But this would be only the beginning. After that, to preserve a pool of fluent (and preferably native) speakers requires a significant effort that consists of many years of study.

One efficient method to preserve languages is to make recordings. This is very helpful to capture a large group of examples in a way that is not particularly labor intensive. It is also helpful for pronunciation and to use as examples of syntax and grammar. However, it would be more helpful to take the time to analyze the speech with a view toward identifying which rules the speech exemplifies. Thus, as in so many fields of research, the data analysis is much more labor, and therefore, resource intensive than the data acquisition.

It comes down to the will of the culture that supports the language. The Tlingit people of Alaska think that at least some aspects of their language are worth saving. This project is going forward and there is some effort in the local schools.

Also, I like y our point about preserving some aspects of many languages vs. preserving many aspects of one language. This comparison again invokes the notion of how to use finite resources. If we don't preserve at least some aspects of many languages future generations will ask why we did not.

An aspect of language preservation that so far no one has identified in this discussion is the idea that if a native speaker of a language is also a trained linguist, he or she will be able to communicate more precisely with other linguists who have a similar formal background in language specification. If one is familiar with all the sounds that the human vocal organ can make, one can select from this pool with better precision, the sounds that occur in a particular language. The same can be said for grammar. Precise specification can speed up the preservation of a language because experts can arrive at a solution more rapidly than novices. At least it helps to have a researcher who understands the need for precision and how to achieve it. Case in point: Students and lay people went to Alaska to try to preserve Alaskan languages. They meant well but since they did not know how to write down what they heard, their systems of notation were imprecise, and ambiguous. If they heard a sound that was not in their language, they did not give it as much importance as a sound that was in their language. Furthermore, their data-acquisition methods were not consistent either with standard practice or with each other. Consequently, much of their work is useless as it cannot be correlated to other data.

Interesting example from Alaska. So what should research have done to tackle the situation?

Hello James,

Ideally, the effort should have been better planned and coordinated. The problem is that there are not enough funded expert language researchers available to study all of the endangered languages that need to be preserved and documented. To help the experts, perhaps what the lay people should have done is to ask the researchers what would be the best use of the limited time they had to spend with the Alaskan native speakers. Not being a trained linguist, I am sure that I will miss some important approaches and activities, but I would think that it would help to record the native speaker's speech, write it down as best as possible, and then ask the native speaker, if possible, to critique the transcription for spelling, punctuation, etc. The speech itself should have at least two parts. The fIrst would focus on grammar with a set script developed by the linguist expert(s). The native speaker could add grammar categories in case the researcher missed something. The second part would consist of a narrative, poem, or some kind of a story selected by the native speaker to show good examples of different aspects of the language. Each would be recorded and transcribed. Lastly, the texts would be translated, or if that were difficult, provide an explanation for words that do not translate well into English. Recording everything both digitally as well as on paper would be a step toward a consistent approach that would provide some reasonable basis of comparison. I am sure that any trained linguist would be able to add some details to this approach or correct it if it does not work.

Sounds good to me, Marion! I know very little about the technical aspects of languages or linguistics, since I'm a biologist, but languages, their evolution, and likely futures interests me greatly. I did try to connect with some linguistics people at the University of Dar es Salaam, but got not response. Probably I should just go there and see what they're up to, in order to make my interest more than just a spouting of thoughts into the wind! Easier said than done, but probably worth a try. Sounds like you are rather better qualified than I am to do something about language disappearances. Good luck in these efforts!

Hello James,

This is quite an interesting discussion. All of my degrees are in chemistry, but I have an interest in comparative linguistics, having studied several languages. Help is on the way. A friend of mine has a niece who is a linguistics expert and I have invited her to join ResearchGate. Maybe she can shed some more light on the topics we have been discussing.

Actually, I'm retired now so I don't anticipate writing any more grant proposals but I have always been interested in precise documentation, specification, and experimental/study design across many scientific and technical fields. I would like to see more languages preserved but will leave the work to those who are active in the field and need the money.

Every language we lose is a bit of human culture (and definition) lost

i work in technical fields, in which every different viewpoint helps to detect different kinds of problems, and i believe that the same is true for language - every different language provides a different viewpoint about us as humans

interesting worries about the disapperance of langauges. Here in Africa I think it is better to look at the issue in a strictly evolutionary perspective. The world has long moved on and maladaptive native cultures along with their languages are simply selected out by the evolutionary pressures of a fast modernizing world. we may emotionally regret the passing of these undaptable languages but insisting on artificially preserving them may be more like trying to rescue a rat from the belly of a snake that has already swallowed it. the gesture is commendable but it serves no useful purpose. tribal speakers of tribal langauges who consciously select langauges other than and away from their own are involved in the only survival moves available to them. let us not mourn the passing of unviable langauges and cultures; let's rather help in creating more conducive conditions for the transition of tribal peoples to modernity. I am speaking as an African who is more concerned with thegrim reality of underdevlopment-induced hunger and disease than with the romanticism of rescuing and preserving Adamic languages of the world

Dear Denis,

That is a very interesting and valid viewpoint. When resources are limited, it is important to decide what things have the highest priority. That said, there are certainly lots of aspects of human culture which are really important. Do you not agree? As an African, there must be aspects of African-ness that are both really interesting, and really important? I really hope that you be more positive about Africa, Denis. Actually, economic growth is now stronger in Africa than in any other continent. OK, there is a long way to catch up, but the progress is now inexorable. Nigeria has made great progress, and many other African countries too. As we make progress, I am sure that we should try to value our culture. Of course, it's great to be open to outside influences, and to learn from others elsewhere and not lock ourselves away and live in the past. However, Africa has a uniquely rich language diversity, and Nigeria has probably more than any other country. That's an amazing resource and record of human ingenuity, resourcefulness and creativity. Humanity has to be more than just surviving and passing our genes on the the next generation. With that in mind, I am sure that it's a worthy cause to make at least the most modest efforts to record the richness of our languages. Doesn't have to cost much at all, at the simplest level, and doesn't have to involve you or me, but a little interest and enthusiasm from a small number of linguists would certainly go a long way. It's nothing to do with primativeness vs modernity. You can be incredibly modern and still speak your own language and value your culture. There are so many examples of this. In Tanzania, we have Masai, that are highly educated doctors and lead thoroughly modern lifestyles as Tanzanians, whilst still cherishing their cultural heritage that includes customs, language and dress. It does not have to be an either or. No reason why we can't be modern but value our respective cultures too. Don't you think?

Hello Denis and James,

I can see the validity in both of your posts.

1. Economics and politics are likely to be major driving forces in which languages survive. Let's focus on better economics.

2. It does not have to be "either food or language" in all cases - some African languages will survive and the people who speak them can increase their standard of living.

I would add:

3. Put these two points together, and you have the idea that it does not need to be all or nothing. Given the rate of extinction of languages worldwide (some of the recent ones have been in Africa), we know that some are likely to perish in the near future. Rather than worry about what we can't save, let's focus on what we can.

4. One way to help preserve languages indirectly is to upgrade living conditions for people who speak them. Chemists say, "Better living through chemistry." Perhaps linguists could say, "Better language through living." When one is concerned about family survival and hunger, one has no time to study or preserve languages. When the standard of living is upgraded sufficiently, people will have more time to spend on cultural pursuits, including language.

Hello James and Marion, Thanks for your enlightening rejoinders. I aggree with James that it deos not have to be an either or situation, ie, saving languages or saving people from hunger. I also agree with Marion that we can save what we can and leave the rest. My point however was to discourage unprofitable nostalgia especially on the part of those like we Africans who really have a lot of work to do. When some people from the post-modern affluent west set about defending dying languages or dying species of elephants and snakes, it is mostly because they have finished the essentials of ther world's work and thus their values are simply different from those who are merely seeking survival. A Malian sage was once asked by a western ecologist what he thought of elephants. His answer was 'these are nothing but filthy beasts that destroy our crops'. I think that if he was asked what he thought of our dying languages in Africa he probably would have said that we have real issues to worry about Denis Ekpo

Interesting response, Denis. I think on the issue of languages, I do not think that I would advocate necessarily for saving languages right now, as you are absolutely right that we do not have the resources, even to rescue a small number. However, what I do think is important is to do the minimum possible to make a record of these languages. You may not feel the need yourself, but I can assure you that your descendants may not feel the same way. Nigeria currently has the richest language diversity of any country in Africa, but make no mistake, in 50 years, 90% of those languages will be gone. Tanzania, where I live, will be much the same, although on a lesser scale. Having a few interested students go home and record their relatives could be relatively easy to do, but could be hugely valuable. It's a shame that the Malian sage did not have more wisdom about the place of humankind amongst our other relatives in the natural world. If the elephants could speak, it would be closer to the mark if they described humankind as filthy beasts that pollute the earth and greedily demand more and more of the planet with no regard to the interests of the other creatures with whom we share this wonderful corner of the universe. Sadly, the western world has the worst record in this regard, although fortunately things seem to be changing slowly.

wonderful answer James. It may indeed appear odd that many Africans today, just like the Malian sage, do not share the west's concerns for ecological sanity. but I want you to remember that about 70 years or so ago, the west had no such worries, at least not on the current grand scale. The reason was that the west was still engaged in securing its material well being. Now that the west has achieved full material security, it has evolved to what is called post-material values such as ecology, compassion for the weak, justice for the oppressed etc. The temptation is strong for westerners to see this movement towards post-material values as a spectacular achievemnt of the west's higher human consciousness. but it should nevertheless be resisted for the west is only making virtue of necessity. It is probable that once Africa is able to come out of the shackles of poverty into industrial affluence and material security, it will necessarily cultivate many of the current post-material pursuits that the west cuurently pride itself in

Dear Zuzanna,

Thanks very much for the response, and for the reference to the LOT project. I checked it out, and it was very helpful, although according to the information presented there, it should have been completed by 2012. I have been able to write to several of the people involved, and am curious to see how they respond. So, thanks again for your feedback!

I am a speaker of Welsh, a minority language of about 500k to 750k fluent speakers, mostly bilingual with English. The language has experienced a renaissance since the 1969s through two primary mechanisms, neither of them essentially economic, viz.. 1. The propensity of mothers to send their children to Welsh speaking schools 2. the setting up of a TV channel with unique material (e.g. prime sporting events) which you can only access in Welsh.

There is an argument that increasing the economic conditions of minority language speakers actually detracts from their tendency to speak that language, particularly if the economic benefit is attached to speaking the DL. The case of the Sma'algyax speakers in BC is a case in point, where the arrival of a fish canning facility certainly increased the economic local benefit but speakers were required to work n English (for Health and safety reasons!).

On the loss issue, there is clear evidence from applied epistemology and knowledge management that knowledge (both tacit and explicit) is held not just in the (number of) concepts we can declare on a certain topic, but in the richness of our connections between those concepts. Ergo, if we lose a language we may be losing ;'native' knowledge for two reasons. a) because we lose the expressive capacity to distinguish between, say plant species or reindeer types and 2) because we lose the ability to see connections between those concepts because our linguistic capacity (as reified in the DL) is less capable of allowing or engendering that connective cognition.

On a separate point, I rather disagree with Edna (just above), in that describing and taping language, while important in scholarly terms, is insufficient to preserve a language, although it does help to see your language recorded, since it is then authenticated in the eyes of speakers. All the dictionaries and gramnmars in the wold have not helped Latin survive; it has survived by mutating into living languages such as Romanian French and other romance languages. Welsh is not surviving because of grammars or tapes, but because people feel a need, social or economic to speak it.

Hi John,

Very interesting answer! Just a short question in response to this. What if existing populations that speak an endangered language do not really recognize the particular need for it, and therefore lose it, but future descendants of those people do realize the value. I can see that there must be many situations where existing populations do not see the need to preserve their local language, since there are strong economic incentives to use a more widely spoken alternative, but future descendants of those populations will come to realize the cultural value, only for it to be too late. I am not familiar with the Cornish story, but have an impression that there is current strong interest in developing this language, and that written and recorded information proved important in 'resurrecting' it? In East Africa, where I live, i am sure that we are on the verge of losing hundreds of language in the next couple of decades, many of which will sink without a trace. The impression here, and as it has emerged from previous contributions, is that short term economic needs are much more pressing that any longer-term cultural value of language preservation.

James, I share your concern for the need to save dying languages all over the world. But do you have to press the case by suggesting that a dead language is such a crucial lost to humanity? That would presuppose a fixist idea of human life and of life in general. But life is never static, is always in a flux and seeks perpetual expansion through infinite change and mutations. The point made by John Powell appears to me more accurate. Minority languages that want to survive do so by mutating into creoles of dominant languages just like Latin mutated into French and other Romance languages in order to survive. Similarly, the many micro languages dying away in Africa today cannot be salvaged by any recordings or other artificial methods; they can only adapt to evolutionary pressures exerted by their environments or they perish. The undue romanticism that would seek to preserve them at all cost amount to an attempt to go against the very principle of life. Whatever appears lost in one direction is only preparing the ground for new forms to appear. None can stop change because none can stop life.

Hi Denis. Good discussion. Reminds me of what we talked about before.

In essence, for Tanzania. Currently we have 100+ living languages, in 50 years we could have 2 (Swahili and English). Is that a problem, or is it not? I just suspect that it would be less of a problem if we did at least have some minimal record of those languages, as they are part of the cultural history of the people of Tanzania. I suppose it then boils down to whether there is any value in culture or not? I just suspect that if we all sounded the same, ate hamburgers, wore turbans and watched just football for our entertainment, it might be a less wonderful world than it is, with all of our cultural diversity.

Drawing from John's comments, he actually makes some very important points about the concrete effects of language loss. It would be interesting to know from John, as the speaker of a 'minority' langauge, whether he thinks that Welsh was worth preserving and strengthening or not?

I like the thinking about Cornish (the same might be said about Manx, a Q-group language). I'm not saying that recording dying languages is not useful or even important, but for me it's a somewhat academic response, almost like freeze drying botanical specimens. It will be very important for linguists to be able to experience and study logs tongues in generations to come. Rather, what I am expressing here is that recording a language does not directly help it's survival. Experiences all over the world from Northern US to Australia indicate a complex network of socio-economic precursors to language survival.

From a point of a systems theorist (I'm professor of strategy rather than linguistics) I find it puzzling that language scholars appear to seek single causation s rather than accepting a complex, system-based nexus of causes.

That was the case with Welsh, of course, when a concatenation of economic advantages arising from political acts, social pressures (speaking Welsh just became 'cool') and ethnic identity pressures came together in the mid 1960s. Critical was the establishment of S4C, a welsh language TV channel showing Welsh-only unique programming of popular programmes, such as Pobol Y Cwm, a soap opera, and rugby (welsh people are FANATICAL about rugby!) whereby in order to follow the soap or the rugby you had to listen to a Welsh programme.

In direct answer to James, I do think its worth preserving, And just because it is my language ; I would say the same of Squamish or Sma'algyax or Basque etc. preserving a language for me is the wrong vocabulary. I don't want want my language preserved (unless that's all that is possible). I want my language used to do business, to make live, to shout in the streets and, above all for small children to play in.

I came across an interesting article on the BBC website about this topic just yesterday. Here is the reference:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140606-why-we-must-save-dying-languages

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140606-why-we-must-save-dying-languages

That's a good article, James. Thank you.

In March of 2013, on this thread, I posted a link to the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights, on the UNESCO's web site. This document was drafted by an international team of native speakers, activists, academics, and others, and was officially proclaimed at a congress in Barcelona in 1996.

Today I am uploading the book version, including letters of support from prominent public figures, published in 1998.

Here is the Castillian Spanish version of the same Declaration. (I say "Castillian Spanish" because there are several Spanish languages.)

In 2011 PEN International, which initiated the process that culminated in the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights, met in Girona and ratified the Girona Manifesto on Linguistic Rights.

Here is the Castillian Spanish version of the Girona Manifesto.

And to close this series of posts, here is the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights in Nahuatl, the language spoken by the Aztecs at the time of the Spanish conquest. Today there are over a million and a half speakers of this Mesoamerican language (or more precisely, this linguistic group with many speech varieties having varying levels of inteligibility), making it the native linguistic group with the largest number of speakers in Mexico.

Am I the only minority language speaker who finds these declarations somewhat empty? I can only agree with the clauses, but I'm left wondering why, if we are so committed to langauge conservation, we are still losing 2 languages a month. I am not saying that the Declaration is morally empty, just that the process of conservation, resurgence or even just the delay of a language's demise is complex, multi-dimensional, resource-demanding and practical.

John: these declarations are part of a much larger struggle being played out daily by many people organized in formal and informal networks. The declarations are not the entire story, just part of this struggle.

In the case of the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights, the main criticism that it encountered in the UNESCO committees was not that it was "somewhat empty," but that it was in fact too full, due to the fact that people from very diverse disciplinary and ethnic backgrounds participated in its formulation, and their views were accommodated and reconciled as far as was possible. Its relative complexity made it too distant from the usual language in international declarations of this type. Our goal was for this declaration to become an international convention, to be put before member nations of the United Nations for ratificatiion. This was not achieved, although the final document influenced legislation in many nations (explicitly in Guatemala, to name just one case), and continues to be a referent, available for consultation on the UNESCO web site.

The Girona Manifesto, of course, is far more succinct, summing up the basic principles of linguistic rights in ten simple points.

Thanks for that. I do understand, but speaking as one of those people 'organized into formal and informal networks', I'd quite like a helping hand...:>)

Certainly in the UK, the respect even for own indigegous languages is minimal (with the exception of Welsh). There seems to be little understanding of the consequences of language loss in this little island.

I do respect this part of the struggle, though.

John, we probably won't achieve everything we set out to accomplish, but the work we do will surely have some positive impact. The sum of many small actions will probably outweigh the louder voice of the declarations in the long run.

Language is one of the most incredible 'inventions' of humanity, and its astonishing diversity is something that surely warrants some attention in its protection, not least since that diversity has such important cultural significance for the peoples of the world that posses, live and breathe it. The Welsh people have fortunately grasped this significance before it has become too late. Many other peoples are either sleep-walking into losing their cultural heritage or being effectively forced in this direction by external and more aggressive cultural forces. I think that it's wonderful that there is a movement of people that realize that the language diversity of humanity is on the brink of collapse, and are thinking about how to reduce the impact of this process.

I get very itchy when I hear people talk of preserving a language by recording it, codifying it, writing grammars, etcetera. These are not useless activities, but they are still stuffing dodos. Language is a living social phenomenon and one could argue that unless it exists within a social context it is merely a stuffed bird, interesting as a museum exhibit, even important as a record of a lost species, but not constitutive of preservation of a language.

A case in point is the celtic language, Cornish, which unlike my own native language died out in the late 19th century. Yes. it has been 'revived' in that a few thousand people in the SW of England speak what they think is Cornish, following a corpus of work, written and grammaticised, in an honest linguistic and cultural endeavour. They are sincere in that, but one cannot claim that what they speak is Cornish, in the sense of what Cornish speakers used before the death of their rather beautiful language. At best it is a modern pastiche.

Now were it ti be adopted by a substantial number of modern Cornish speakers, almost as a punctuated creole. it would re-achieve a status of a living language but it would , in my view be difficult to argue that it is in any sense Cornish any more than I would claim to speak Old English just because I am fortunate enough ti have acquired this form of English.

............................................

I also want to attack the argument that losing a language is less important than losing a species.

First there's the numerical argument. 7000 languages, 7000 000 species. On a percentage basis losing a language is 1000 times more damaging than losing the Japanese Knotweed that invades my cabbage patch.

Second, if a species is dying out and we observe that, we can, in fact, take samples of its DNA and genuinely preserve it. We CANNOT do that with a language, since the former is a complete record, a definition of the species in question and recordings and grammars of dying languages are not.

Third, on a valuation basis, losing one of the 100s of endangered languages in the upper Congo or far Siberia is not some trivial, unimportant world event, any more than is losing some small black beetle to logging operations in the Amazon. Each could be bearing knowledge about some thing valuable to humankind.

I'm not arguing against preserving polar bears or small beetles here. But I am arguing that preserving languages as living social objects is at least as important.